Le samedi 18 juin 2011 à 23:29 +0300, Ahmad Samir a écrit :
> So, is there a consensus about this yet? (note that the backports list
> of packages keeps growing in the mean time :)).
Well, my own impression was that the consensus is :
the policy for version 1 is :
- we can upload a missing package in update provided :
- it follow the same path as any update in term of QA, etc
- it was asked by someone, with a bug report or something like that,
that it break update from 2010.1 ( so that part is specifically tested
).
- there is no package in updates or release ( ie, the exception is
only once )
for version 2 and later :
- new versions goes to backport, unless clearly expressed exceptions
( bugfixes branchs, annoying upstreams ). The exact list of exception is
roughly well agreed, minus details ( where the devil hide, obviously ).
However, we didn't wrote it, nor decided on how to decide.
So we would need :
- a list of such exception written somewhere
- a documented way to decide how to be in the exception list, ie a
criteria list. I have attempted a proposal here :
https://www.mageia.org/pipermail/mageia-dev/2011-June/005225.html ,
boklm attempted a slightly different one :
https://www.mageia.org/pipermail/mageia-dev/2011-June/005373.html
Both are similar in spirit, so the question is just finding clear and
useful criterias.
Regarding backport policy, we didn't started to discuss much, but I
wouldn't except to have it different from Mandriva for now, except what
does "supported" mean, and the impact on the whole system ( as Christian
noted, how to fill stuff in bugzilla, or the impact on Requires for a
packaging policy to avoid mixing version ).
That's something to keep for later, since that's already hard to follow
current discussion ( especially with people who do not trim the email
they answer to, and since ).
But I will summarize the ideas and send a email after the one about
release cycle.
--
Michael Scherer